Hacker News Reader

Comment by pedalpete | Hacker News Reader

What Gruber I think is missing is that if Microsoft (or Google) employees continued using products that weren't great products yet, but were commonly viewed as 'the future', the company could take the experience of those employees and improve the product to the point where it was good enough and they did want to use it.

I think Google did the right thing making Glass a limited release product, what they don't seem to have done well enough yet, is to iterate it to the point where it is adding value. Sadly, with the current backlash, I doubt they'll get there.

View on HN

I doubt it. What you describe is a continuous process that normally occurs before releasing a product.

Collecting feedback from employees is indeed useful and in effect priceless when done right. Doing the same with a set of early adopters who know what they're getting into as well.

The same with a large pool of anyones, however, is a recipe to turn your not-yet-quite-ready product into something customers buy, eventually stop using, and never touch again no matter how much you improve it later on.

Think of it this way: You buy a game that is get mostly good reviews. You're unimpressed and are left scratching your head as to why it's getting them. It eventually gathers dust somewhere. A few years later, you hear that it needed this or that patched up ruleset, along with this and that mod or extension to be fun and playable. I predict that your odds of unearthing said game to give it a second try are about nil. The game had its chance and failed; you moved on, and so might Google Glass users.

Second mouse gets the cheese on this one. I think we all realize that using screens and looking at pads all the time limit what we can really do and how we interact with people, but the current execution just won't get us there.

But Google Glass hasn't seen 'public' release. I can't go out and buy one.

From where I live I can't say for sure, as I've yet to see any Google Glass near me. But seeing how it's been widely available as a product to the press and early developers (to build hype; and it worked), and how basically any developer can now get one [1], that seems widely available enough.

Look... If, by now, Google execs consider they've collected so much feedback from its plethora of potential in-house users that they look elsewhere for more feedback, and employees ultimately aren't excited to use it themselves, it doesn't bode very well for the product's future. A golden rule to good product development is to market dogfood that you're drooling to eat (and ideally eating) yourself.

[1]: http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-one/

I don't think the current generation hardware can be used in a way that ads value. I think its way more likely that Google employees used it for a while, but couldn't find enough actual uses for it, so they couldn't iterate.

Anyway, a limited release is also wise on those circunstances. Maybe when battery and display improves, somebody (maybe even Google) could "invent" glasses again, like Apple "invented" tablets.

"a way that ads value"

Intentional, or typo? I imagine that "a billboard on your face" would be highly valued.

I think back at many products that failed to gain traction and in many cases they failed not because they didn't provide a "wow, that's cool factor" but more because they weren't built with the everyday consumer in mind.

Building something that's is cutting edge isn't the hardest part. It's building something that is cutting edge and easy to understand that's hard. The iPhone was a good example of a product that did both. We saw it and we got it and most of all, we WANTED it. Same with the iPad. Google Glass? Not so much.

And I'm sure Microsoft iterated with the tablet PC. Blackberry iterated and look where it got them.

I think Gruber is arguing that the concept may be sound (just like tablet form factor computers, portable MP3 players, and smartphones), but the implementation is probably shit.

The reason everybody carries around something that looks more like the 2007 iPhone than the 2007 Blackberries is that Apple didn't iterate. They took the concept and completely rethought it.

Somebody may be able to do this with Glass. Who knows—it might even be Google!

aka Dogfooding...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food

>what they don't seem to have done well enough yet, is to iterate it to the point where it is adding value

They release monthly updates, based on feedback.

https://support.google.com/glass/topic/3284652?hl=en&ref_top...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com